With two events, there are three types of what i've dubbed 'mutual patterns':
Mutual Inclusion
A B
1 -> 1 If A then B
1 <- 1 If B then A
A <-> B
Mutual Exclusion
A B
1 -> 0 If A then NOT B
0 <- 1 If B then NOT A
NOT A <-> B
NOT B <-> A
Mutual erm... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A B
0 -> 0 If NOT A then NOT B
0 <- 0 If NOT B then NOT A
NOT A <-> NOT B
See, here's where the confusion lies. For 2 of the three patterns, you have words used to describe those two patterns which are antonyms to each other. I.e their opposites. So there is no third term beyond exclusion and inclusion, but the type of pattern where the absence of A assures the absence of the other B and vice versa, still shares this notion of mutuality. In other words, it's like am looking for a third opposite... Which I don't think is possible.
The statement: $$ (\textrm{Not} \ A) \Leftrightarrow (\textrm{Not} \ B) $$ is equivalent to the statement: $$ A \Leftrightarrow B $$ P.S.: You can easily check that the above statements are contrapositives.